Postmedia Network Inc. sought a declaration that a publication ban, imposed during a 2017 bail hearing for a sexual assault charge, applied only to the victim and not to a testifying mental health worker (B.M.) who was later identified in a newspaper article and subsequently sued Postmedia.
Alternatively, Postmedia sought to quash the ban via certiorari, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to impose a mandatory ban on adult witnesses.
The Crown opposed, arguing improper collateral attack and lack of standing due to oblique motives and delay.
The court found Postmedia had standing, the application was not an improper collateral attack, and interpreted s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code to mean that mandatory publication bans apply only to victims of all ages and witnesses under 18 years.
The application was allowed, and a declaration issued that the ban applied only to the victim.
